Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

Jun 6, 2013 Full story: Denver Post 3,286

Engaged gay couple Dave Mullins, second from left, and Charlie Craig, left, were joined by a small group of supporters in Lakewood on Aug. 4, 2012 to protest and boycott the Masterpiece Cakeshop at 3355 S. Wadsworth Blvd. The couple went to the cake shop, and the owner turned the couple away saying he would not make them a rainbow-themed wedding ... (more)

Full Story
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2328 Jun 18, 2014
lides wrote:
Even if he did, that is irrelevant to the matter.
You're putting me to sleep with your boring and repetitive BS. I would support the baker all day long. The gays were childish, you know about that, and unreasonable. The sad part is that you support a law that disregards what this baker/photographer/florist says is offensive and support a law that that protects these same people for other reasons. Who decides what is and what isn't offensive? Can you see how dangerous this is?

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2329 Jun 18, 2014
Wondering wrote:
You're putting me to sleep with your boring and repetitive BS.
Well, were you any more intelligent, you would either stop reading my posts, or stop responding. Clearly, you aren't that intelligent.
Wondering wrote:
I would support the baker all day long.
I am well aware of that. However, you don't offer any valid legal grounds for his actions, which you yourself admit broke the law.
Wondering wrote:
The gays were childish, you know about that, and unreasonable.
Wondering, there is nothing childish or unreasonable about asking a baker to make a cake.
Do you realize what an idiot you sound like when you make that assertion?
Wondering wrote:
The sad part is that you support a law that disregards what this baker/photographer/florist says is offensive and support a law that that protects these same people for other reasons. Who decides what is and what isn't offensive?
No, I support a law that prevents discrimination.
Such a law would also prevent me from denying you service because I find morons offensive.
Wondering wrote:
Can you see how dangerous this is?
Wondering, standing up for equal rights, and standing up against discrimination is never dangerous. Standing up for people to be able to project their religious moral views onto customers via their businesses is dangerous, and would be an infringement of the free exercise of the customers.

If the business owner feels that homosexuality or gay marriage is wrong, he has the right not to enter into such a relationship, or such a marriage. He does not have the right to deny service to someone else, who is entitled to make their own choices. This is why your side keeps losing these battles in court. Simply put, providing the service in no way infringes upon the proprietors rights, only an imbecile would think that it did.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2330 Jun 18, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, were you any more intelligent, you would either stop reading my posts, or stop responding. Clearly, you aren't that intelligent.
I never said I was done with you. I read your posts because they are funny. You, OTOH, have said you were done with me at least a dozen times, and yet here you are. Clearly, you aren't that intelligent.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2331 Jun 18, 2014
lides wrote:
I am well aware of that. However, you don't offer any valid legal grounds for his actions, which you yourself admit broke the law.
A bad law and a selective law. You know about those. It happens all the time when a state constitution bans SSM and clerks issue licenses. They should be fired.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2332 Jun 18, 2014
lides wrote:
Wondering, there is nothing childish or unreasonable about asking a baker to make a cake.
I agree with that. The childish part came later. Any person with a functioning brain knows that.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2333 Jun 18, 2014
lides wrote:
No, I support a law that prevents discrimination.
No, you support harassment and threats.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2334 Jun 18, 2014
lides wrote:
Wondering, standing up for equal rights, and standing up against discrimination is never dangerous.
The devil is in the details. I suggest you have your 5 year old friend help you do some research.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2335 Jun 18, 2014
lides wrote:
If the business owner feels that homosexuality or gay marriage is wrong, he has the right not to enter into such a relationship
He tried, he got sued by a couple of crybabies.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#2336 Jun 18, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said I was done with you. I read your posts because they are funny. You, OTOH, have said you were done with me at least a dozen times, and yet here you are. Clearly, you aren't that intelligent.
The young lad tells everyone he disagrees with that they are not intelligent. Sure sign he's a dope. He starts losing the argument, tries to salvage his dignity by dismissing you as stupid. So obvious.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2337 Jun 18, 2014
Wondering wrote:
He tried, he got sued by a couple of crybabies.
Did you ever notice how you have to parse only the sections of a post you wish to respond to, often stoping a sentence in mid phrase, and thereby altering the entire meaning of the sentence by responding to only a fragment of that sentence?

Perhaps if you were more intelligent you could offer a valid argument, or respond to a complete thought. Clearly, judging from your constant manipulation of the posts to which you are responding, you aren't mentally up to the task.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#2338 Jun 18, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
The young lad tells everyone he disagrees with that they are not intelligent. Sure sign he's a dope. He starts losing the argument, tries to salvage his dignity by dismissing you as stupid. So obvious.
I saw this today and immediately thought of the stubborn ignorance that Respect and Wondering display so well.

I hope you like it.
"Jon Stewart Rips Texas GOP on 'Ex-Gay' Therapy"

"Stewart pulled no punches. After showing footage of crackpot psychologist and "ex-gay" proponent Joseph Nicolosi saying ... that changing a gay person is merely a matter of bringing out their inner heterosexual, Stewart pointed out the absurdity of that claim.

"But [heterosexuality is] the thing [gay people] don't have in them. It's like giving a woman a C-section who's not pregnant. You won't find what you're looking for, but you will leave a scar."

He then brought up some of the abusive and disgusting "treatments" that these junk-science therapists prescribe, including electroshock therapy and having the patient put their poop in a bottle and sniff it whenever they're attracted to someone of the same sex. Stewart said Texas Republicans should take this advice to heart:

"Being gay is not a choice, but being a Texas Republican is. So my advice is the next time you feel the urge to be a Texas Republican -- to replace science textbooks with pictures of humans riding dinosaurs, or ban same-sex marriage, or put on this [plush GOP elephant hat], shit in a jar and sniff it. It won't cure you; the science proves that. But do it anyway. Hopefully it'll remind you of what assholes you're being."

Read more at http://www.bilerico.com/2014/06/jon_stewart_r...

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#2339 Jun 18, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
You're putting me to sleep with your boring and repetitive BS.....
How ironic.

You and Respect refuse to accept that using religion to deny service is religious discrimination and the guy is guilty.

You're both putting me to sleep with your boring and repetitive BS

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#2340 Jun 18, 2014
@lides:
face it. wasting any more time on this thread trying to "reason" with Respect and astro the wonderboy is like trying to teach a deaf and blind dog how to play fetch.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2341 Jun 18, 2014
DNF wrote:
@lides:
face it. wasting any more time on this thread trying to "reason" with Respect and astro the wonderboy is like trying to teach a deaf and blind dog how to play fetch.
Oh, I have known that for some time. At this point I am pretty much through with Wonderbread. I have kept bringing up valid arguments that address the topic, and they have descended into behaving like an unruly child.

I was curious just how juvenile and irrational they could be made to become. Apparently, they can be driven to the point of becoming a troll who relentlessly follows a user and replies to them, even if they never address the topic at hand and devolve into posts that constitute little more than childish ad hominem attacks.

Ironically, they seem to have nothing better to do with their time, and spend every waking hour online, seemingly on topix. So the funny part is that I often walk away for hours, as I did today, only to stop back in and have them pick up instantly. They don't seem to have any regard for how foolish, bigoted, and dumb they have made themselves appear in the process.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a date with some bourbon and a barbecue grill.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2342 Jun 19, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you ever notice how you have to parse only the sections of a post you wish to respond to, often stoping a sentence in mid phrase, and thereby altering the entire meaning of the sentence by responding to only a fragment of that sentence?
Perhaps if you were more intelligent you could offer a valid argument, or respond to a complete thought. Clearly, judging from your constant manipulation of the posts to which you are responding, you aren't mentally up to the task.
Don't blame me if you never had a complete thought. It's 'stopping' not "stoping."
KA-BOOM!

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2343 Jun 20, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I didn't. And, as I have already explained, I will not waste my time listening to the rantings of a lunatic, that you aren't able to support through written media, which I can digest more quickly. The end game seems to be that you have found a single source that supports your fiction, and that you are incapable of substantiating their opinion either. Merely presenting a like minded talk radio host spouting the same opinion is not factual substantiation.
<quoted text>
Respect, are you high? The court addressed EXACTLY this scenario in their decision, the text of which has been provided to you repeatedly, along with a link to the full decision.
Here you are again, kiddo:
"Finally, Respondents argue that if they are compelled to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, then a black baker could not refuse to make a cake bearing a white-supremacist message for a member of the Aryan Nation; and an Islamic baker could not refuse to make a cake denigrating the Koran for the Westboro Baptist Church. However, neither of these fanciful hypothetical situations proves Respondentsí point. In both cases, it is the explicit, unmistakable, offensive message that the bakers are asked to put on the cake that gives rise to the bakersí free speech right to refuse. That, however, is not the case here, where Respondents refused to bake any cake for Complainants regardless of what was written on it or what it looked like. Respondents have no free speech right to refuse because they were only asked to bake a cake, not make a speech."
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/asse...
<quoted text>
Actually, as the court rightly pointed out, free speech has limits. If you don't like the law, work to change it. Merely disagreeing with a provision does not invalidate it.
<quoted text>
They were denied service on the basis of their sexuality, supposedly because their sexuality "violated" the baker's free exercise. If the baker requires clientele to conform to his religious views in order to obtain service, then he is infringing upon the religious freedom of his would-be customers.
<quoted text>
No, I am not. You are being dishonest when you conflate the baking of a cake with an offensive protest sign. The court was quite clear on this point. That you don't understand that says more about you than anything else.
<quoted text>
There is no exception to be made. No one, regardless of their sexuality, age, race, religion, gender, etc is beholden to produce content with an explicit, unmistakable, or offensive message.
Letís step back.. Throughout this thread, you have shown an intense distain for those who donít believe as you. Calling them names, making untrue assumptions, lying about what they state in their posts and you ignore facts even if the facts where first hand.

I stand for freedom for all Americans in regards to what marriage and weddings mean to them personally. Whether they are gay or religious or indifferent there is no reason for government to force an individual to use their talents to support and participate in something they strongly do not believe in, and for government to punish someone for doing NOTHING to a individualís liberty is removing the liberty of the one being punished.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2344 Jun 20, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Letís step back.. Throughout this thread, you have shown an intense distain for those who donít believe as you. Calling them names, making untrue assumptions, lying about what they state in their posts and you ignore facts even if the facts where first hand.
Respect, I'm sorry, you have misinterpreted my posts. I hold intense disdain for anyone who would hold fellow countrymen as second-class citizens with less than equal protection of the laws.
Respect71 wrote:
I stand for freedom for all Americans in regards to what marriage and weddings mean to them personally.
You say this, but then you frequently make arguments to the contrary, as you do below.
Respect71 wrote:
Whether they are gay or religious or indifferent there is no reason for government to force an individual to use their talents to support and participate in something they strongly do not believe in, and for government to punish someone for doing NOTHING to a individualís liberty is removing the liberty of the one being punished.
Here's the problem, kiddo. Providing a service, like a cake, for a same sex wedding in no way violates the proprietor's free exercise of religion or freedom of speech. The Colorado Administrative Law Judge did a fine job of thoroughly illustrating this simple fact. The reality is that the baker does not have the right to refuse services for a same sex couple that they would provide for a traditional marriage. He may not agree with it, he may not like it, but providing a service for a ceremony he does not agree with doesn't violate his rights.

You are functioning under the delusion that free exercise of religion includes the ability to project one's religious beliefs onto others, or make them conform to the religious beliefs of the proprietor in order to obtain service. This is both incorrect, and were it allowed, would be inherently dangerous. This is because if one were allowed to wield their religious freedom in such a manner ignoring laws that they saw as inconvenient on the basis of their interpretation of their religious views, then every man would be a law unto himself, which is to say that the law would basically seek to exist, as it would become optional. This is also dangerous because if citizens were allowed to project their religious beliefs onto others it would negate free exercise of religion.

If the baker feels that homosexuality is wrong, he is free not to enter into such a relationship. Similarly, if he feels that same sex marriage is wrong, he has a right not to enter into such a union. He does not have the right to deny services to others because they choose to marry the adult consenting same sex partner of their choosing.

You are attempting to rationalize the fundamentally irrational notion that the baker's rights were violated, when plainly, they were not.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#2345 Jun 20, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Respect, I'm sorry, you have misinterpreted my posts. I hold intense disdain for anyone who would hold fellow countrymen as second-class citizens with less than equal protection of the laws.
Well then you must hold intense disdain for yourself because you would hold fellow countrymen polygamists as second-class citizens with less than equal protection of the laws.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#2346 Jun 20, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Letís step back.. Throughout this thread, you have shown an intense distain for those who donít believe as you. Calling them names, making untrue assumptions, lying about what they state in their posts and you ignore facts even if the facts where first hand.
I stand for freedom for all Americans in regards to what marriage and weddings mean to them personally. Whether they are gay or religious or indifferent there is no reason for government to force an individual to use their talents to support and participate in something they strongly do not believe in, and for government to punish someone for doing NOTHING to a individualís liberty is removing the liberty of the one being punished.
Whine and sniffle all you want. Discrimination based of religion is against thge law. Has been for a long time now.

Don't like it?

Too bad.

Change the law if you can. Until then stop crying about having to obey the laws that everyone else has to obey.

You have STILL failed to explain why he's perfectly happy taking gay dollars for other services. His "religious beliefs" seem to be based more on $$$$

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#2347 Jun 20, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Well then you must hold intense disdain for yourself because you would hold fellow countrymen polygamists as second-class citizens with less than equal protection of the laws.
You are attempting to rationalize the fundamentally irrational notion that the baker's rights were violated, when plainly, they were not.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Denver Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
last post wins! (Feb '11) 10 hr mr goodwrench 24,651
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) Mon Respect71 12,516
COMFORT DENTAL ....How Many of you feel Ripped ... (Apr '08) Sun Mary 79
Nude photos of 12-year-old girl circulated via ... (Feb '10) Sep 13 seema 304
What would happen if the United States ever dec... (Oct '10) Sep 13 boots 150
Another black kid shot by police that was unarmed Sep 12 twalsh801 3
Review: Bradshaw Studio Sep 11 Guest 2
•••
Denver Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Denver Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••
•••

Denver People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Denver News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Denver
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••